|
Powell
Preaches The Good Word To Our Arab Friends
Derk Kinnane
Roelofsma
Speaking in
Washington at the National Endowment for Democracy on
November 6, President Bush ostensibly abandoned the
long-established policy of backing undemocratic regimes
that line up with Uncle Sam.
Focusing on the
Middle East,
Bush declared, “Sixty years of Western nations executing
and accommodating the lack of freedom in the
Middle East
did nothing to make us safe because in the long run
stability cannot be purchased at the expense of
liberty.”
Views on the speech were divided. Those who took a rosy
view included Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East
Forum, a
Philadelphia think-tank. He is also a controversial
appointee to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace
because of his fierce criticism of political Islamism
and its apologists.
For Pipes, the speech was “about the most jaw-dropping
repudiation of an established bipartisan policy ever
made by a
U.S. president.”
"Not
only does it break with a policy the U.S. government has
pursued since first becoming a major player in the
Middle East, but the speech is audacious in ambition,
grounded in history, and programmatically specific,”
Pipes wrote in the Jerusalem Post. “It's the sort
of challenge to existing ways one expects to hear from a
columnist, essayist, or scholar – not from the leader of
a great power.”
The other view was a more skeptical one. Daniel Brumberg,
an Associate Professor of Government at
Georgetown University, commenting on the speech to the
Council on Foreign Policy, noted that Bush had said,
“Working democracies always need time to develop -- as
did our own. We have taken a 200-year journey toward
inclusion and justice.”
Those words, Brumberg said, were a loophole. “The
administration can say that those countries have their
own traditions; we're not going to impose this; it took
us 200 years.”
"It is a standard conventional American approach, which
is to promote liberalization in the hope that down the
road it opens the door to democratization. But in no way
are we ready to push the democratization button," he
said, because to do so could empower the profoundly
anti-American Islamists in those countries.
Pipes concluded his commentary with, “Get ready for an
interesting ride.”
Four weeks after Bush’s speech, the ride was underway
with Powell dispatched to the Arab West – Tunisia,
Morocco and Algeria – to preach the good word on
building democracy and market economies, as well as
coping with Islamist terrorism, the enemy of the
stability required if democracy and market economies are
to grow.
Arriving in
Tunisia on December 2, Powell had both praise and gentle
encouragement for President Zine el Abidine ben Ali.
Tunisia, Powell said, “has accomplished a lot and it is
for that reason that people are still expecting more to
happen with respect to political reform,” urging wider
press freedom in a country where journalists who upset
the President are tossed into jail.
Tunisia
has indeed made impressive economic progress, but with
no corollary improvement in its political system. Ben
Ali’s regime continues to be one of the most repressive
in the Arab world. That did not keep Powell from
inviting ben Ali to visit President Bush at the White
House in February. Ben Ali, who has rendered legally
recognized opposition parties impotent, won a telltale
99.4 percent of the vote when re-elected in 1999.
Powell’s second stop on his brief two-day tour was
Morocco, where the Moroccan Organization for Human
Rights used the visit to speak out. It charged the
authorities with torture and a variety of other human
rights violations during the wave of arrests and trials
that followed Islamist bombings on May 16. Forty-five
people died in Casablanca, including 12 suicide bombers.
So far, 14 people have been sentenced to death and many
others give long prison sentences.
After being received by King Mohammed VI in Marrakech,
the Secretary announced
U.S. military aid to
Morocco
would be doubled and economic aid would be increased
fourfold.
Powell’s last stop was a few hours in
Algeria where a well-known joke goes, “Other countries
have armies, but, in Algeria, the army has a country.”
The corrupt regime, made up of a military with business
interests, cancelled elections in January 1992 to
prevent Islamists – who believe in one man, one vote,
one time – from winning. An insurgency followed that has
cost over 100,000 lives. Villagers and security forces
continue to be killed by the Islamist militants.
Powell said it was a matter of conjecture as to what
might have happened had the elections not been
cancelled. What the
United States is interested in now is that the
presidential elections next year are free, fair and
transparent. The Secretary lauded Algeria’s “exceptional
cooperation in the war against terrorism” but went on to
say, “democratic progress and economic modernization are
also fundamental to the interests of Algeria and to our
expanding relationship.” Powell said he had a good
discussion with President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who
stands to be re-elected unless the army tires of him.
The picture that emerges from Powell’s Maghrib tour is
one of carrots for allies in the war on terrorism
combined not with sticks to compel reform, but a
vigorous shaking of rhetorical Wilsonian twigs.
After all, which is more likely to influence American
policy? Having good allies in the war on terrorism who
also provide some diplomatic support for
Washington’s
attempts to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict? Or
delivering barrages of criticism about undemocratic
practices, crony economies and wretched human rights
records at the risk of alienating them?
Another question: Does anyone know what measures the
Bush Administration contemplates using to get
freedom-denying Middle Eastern regimes to change their
ways? The answer may be none. As Brumberg’s loophole
puts it, “The administration can say that those
countries have their own traditions; we're not going to
impose this; it took us 200 years.”
Derk Kinnane Roelofsma was a member of the UNESCO
Secretariat in
Paris
for fourteen years and currently works in
Washington
as a senior news correspondent.
|